NCAA Revenue Sharing Update

[Deleted at users request]

Hopefully this will start the process of moving away from this NIL free for all.

 

[Fishy]

This isn’t good news.

Basically, it will be an eight figure hit to our yearly athletic budget.

 

[upstater]

This is a disaster for UConn.

The NIL booster stuff is still going to go on regardless. Nothing to stop it.

But now schools are going to pay $20m on top of that?

Where is UConn going to find an extra $20m per year?

And how is all that backpay going to happen? Where is it going to come from?

It's a weird concept too. The NLRB has ruled against colleges when it comes to unionization of TAs. No doubt it found exploitation. Are they going to pay every former TA some money into perpetuity?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

There going to need to axe a ton of sports up in Storrs eventually if this passes.

Incredibly bizarre how much we've invested in sports that don't ever stand a chance to make the school real money (hockey, baseball, soccer) but let FBS football languish.

 

[storrsroars]

.

 

[Fishy]

As I read it, there's revenue sharing involved where "top end" schools could get $15-$20 million paid out by the NCAA. Whether we're a top end school or not, who knows, but we'd likely be getting 8 figures.

No one is getting money…that’s outgoing cash.

The money would go to players. We’re going to share revenue and retroactive revenue that we’re not receiving and have never received.

 

[storrsroars]

No one is getting money…that’s outgoing cash.

The money would go to players. We’re going to share revenue and retroactive revenue that we’re not receiving and have never received.

I deleted the original post so I could go back and read the article a third time. I misinterpreted some of what I read.

Still, I don't know if it's as cut and dried as nothing in/$20 million out. Does conference NIL include football? If so, we may not have a lot to worry about. Texas, tOSU and LSU are pretty much already at the proposed NIL cap. Can't imagine that's all NCAA sports - has to include football. There would seem an argument that football NIL may not be the NCAA's problem and would defer to the individual schools. And a case could be made for individual schools like UConn that certainly wouldn't/shouldn't have a liability placed on them equal to a P4 school. Who was really denied - or more importantly, deserved NIL from our collectives.

Also, IIRC, while the NCAA made about $1.3 bill this year, expenses were $1.17 bill, so they only net $130 million. A suit seeking $4 billion is ludicrous to pay out to the limited numbers of players included in the suit. Subtracting $1B-$1.3B for the lawyers, that close to $3B to be shared among what, 1000 players tops? $3 million per more or less? That seems ludicrous to me, coming at the expense of breaking the back of 100-200 athletic programs.

I'll defer to the expert legal minds here.

 

[upstater]

No one is getting money…that’s outgoing cash.

The money would go to players. We’re going to share revenue and retroactive revenue that we’re not receiving and have never received.

The retroactive stuff is just bizarre.

Are they going to take even more of the NCAA's $1.1b in NCAA tourney money for this retroactive stuff?

Might as well get rid of the NCAA at that point

 

[Fishy]

I deleted the original post so I could go back and read the article a third time. I misinterpreted some of what I read.

Still, I don't know if it's as cut and dried as nothing in/$20 million out. Does conference NIL include football? If so, we may not have a lot to worry about. Texas, tOSU and LSU are pretty much already at the proposed NIL cap. Can't imagine that's all NCAA sports - has to include football. There would seem an argument that football NIL may not be the NCAA's problem and would defer to the individual schools. And a case could be made for individual schools like UConn that certainly wouldn't/shouldn't have a liability placed on them equal to a P4 school. Who was really denied - or more importantly, deserved NIL from our collectives.

Also, IIRC, while the NCAA made about $1.3 bill this year, expenses were $1.17 bill, so they only net $130 million. A suit seeking $4 billion is ludicrous to pay out to the limited numbers of players included in the suit. Subtracting $1B-$1.3B for the lawyers, that close to $3B to be shared among what, 1000 players tops? $3 million per more or less? That seems ludicrous to me, coming at the expense of breaking the back of 100-200 athletic programs.

I'll defer to the expert legal minds here.

Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)

We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…

In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.

In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.

With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.

Do you see the issue?

 

[Drew]

This is very very bad news for UConn. We do not remotely have the money to do this.

This is not going to replace NIL, this will be happening in conjunction with it. And I would expect eventually the $20M school revenue sharing number gets litigated higher until there is no cap (just like NIL) unless there is some sort of collective bargaining agreement in place for it

I would strongly advise in actually spending LARGE amounts of money to support our football program. Long term not being in the P4 will be absolutely detrimental to this athletic department and anyone else’s outside of it. Anyone pretending that to not be the case at this point is a lost cause.

 

[superjohn]

Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)

We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…

In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.

In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.

With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.

Do you see the issue?

So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.

 

[speckle]

Okay. There’s two components - the lawsuit from athletes suing for lost NIL opportunities they suffered before the NCAA allowed NIL. That lawsuit will involve retroactive payment to 15,000 athletes across a broad spectrum of sports. (House vs NCAA….Graham House was a swimmer at Arizona State, so you can see how broad the beneficiaries will be.)

We will be on the hook to pay football, basketball and women’s basketball players going back to 2016. Whether we would have to pay swimmers, soccer players, track athletes, hockey players….I don’t know. How big the hit will be to UConn? I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think this is the main source our troubles. Read on…

In the settlement of that case, there is expected to be a framework in place to pay athletes going forward - basically, NIL will come in house. The article theorizes a $20M top end per year with schools able to opt in and decide how much they’re going to share with their athletes. Opting out means oblivion; we’re likely going to have to match our ACC/Big 10/B12 peers or suffer the consequences.

In addition, you still have the Charlie Baker proposal out there that would create a subset of schools that would obligate themselves to pay something like $30,000 a year into a fund for every eligible athlete on campus. We have 600 athletes.

With the school proposing 15% across the board cuts to departments to cover the (poorly planned for) budget gaps over the next few years, one department that already loses $35,000,000 a year is going to need to either start losing $50,000,000 a year or sacrifice nearly everything other than our three revenue programs or try to compete while offering much less to student athletes.

Do you see the issue?

Thanks for the write up. It appears that the big football schools are one again using the the NCAA the install price cap and floor measures to solidify their standings. While they will likely be accountable for the vast majority of retroactive NIL out, their large TV contracts easily cover the $20mil NIL/salary opt in. I don't think we necessarily see a straight $20mil loss however since I would imagine the school would be able to resell the NIL rights it would automatically acquire through this framework, potentially matching or exceeding current NIL fundraising. Ironically I kind of see this as the NCAA negotiating against the majority of its members which could indeed lead to it's own destruction. Seems like a tough deal for any non top 40 football school, including all private schools. Juice ain't worth the squeeze here imo

 

[Drew]

 

[speckle]

This is very very bad news for UConn. We do not remotely have the money to do this.

This is not going to replace NIL, this will be happening in conjunction with it. And I would expect eventually the $20M school revenue sharing number gets litigated higher until there is no cap (just like NIL) unless there is some sort of collective bargaining agreement in place for it

I would strongly advise in actually spending LARGE amounts of money to support our football program. Long term not being in the P4 will be absolutely detrimental to this athletic department and anyone else’s outside of it. Anyone pretending that to not be the case at this point is a lost cause.

I interpreted the article differently although I could be mistaken. I believe the big football schools want to inhouse NIL with a cap at $20mil. Otherwise how would their retroactive payout be calculated?

 

[JungleLobo]

So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.

Good idea. Get rid of non-revenue generating band, cheerleaders, student managers (even future NBA coaches of the year) and philosophy majors too.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.

You would have to completely kill football to stay in compliance with Title IX.

Or someone uses this to challenge Title IX, and good luck with that.

 

[superjohn]

You would have to completely kill football to stay in compliance with Title IX.

Or someone uses this to challenge Title IX, and good luck with that.

Our football was killed like 15 years ago, if this goes through I think a lot of football programs will be killed.

 

[Scrutineer]

Here's another take on this:

SEC, Big Ten developing plan to share revenue with players in potential landmark change to college athletics

The model being discussed by college sports' top conferences could go a long way toward settling outstanding lawsuits

www.cbssports.com

I hate to focus on doom and dread, but it's been one thing or another that's kept us out of a league with serious revenue and it looks as if the B1G and SEC have identified the next step to take to finish us (and most others) off. No wonder none of them have invited UConn to join their leagues and make them respectable in basketball. In a few years we won't be around.

This fits with my response to Superjohn about Charlie Baker and the fact the only people that can probably stop the insanity are the university presidents.

There has to be concern about the escalation of costs and distraction from the original goals of their institutions, even among the presidents in the leagues with the massive revenue streams, regarding where this is all leading.

The B1G and SEC are the ones that pushed for NIL after "full cost of attendance" wasn't enough to kill off the "lesser" schools like UConn.

Now that they've seen NIL wasn't enough to finish us off they've come up with this plan. If this happens broader participation in collegiate athletics at a high level will die and a limited number of schools with large TV revenue streams will continue in their revised and enhanced roles as the minor leagues for pro sports. Of course, the big boys could offer a gratuity to the "lesser" schools each time they poach one of their players for the new system.

I laugh when I hear the SEC and B1G talk about rewarding the kids for their hard work while they push forward with draconian plans to kill off thousands of programs that provide a path to a college degree in 15 to 20 sports for tens of thousands of athletes nationwide.

We've had a great ride the past 35 years but we'd better get in a major league soon if this proposal is passed. Otherwise, we'd best enjoy the next few years before the implosion while figuring out how to spend a lot of soon to be freed up time.

 

[speckle]

Folks, no reason to catastrophize about other sports. This is almost entirely about 85 full ride fb scholarship players each year and how to limit their current, past, and future earnings in way that is most palpable to the biggest football schools. So that Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, etc don't just bail on the NCAA all together.

 

[metsfan2323]

We've had a great ride the past 35 years but we'd better get in a major league soon if this proposal is passed. Otherwise, we'd best enjoy the next few years before the implosion while figuring out how to spend a lot of soon to be freed up time.

Nope, we would just drop football and other sports and basketball would still be a Big East powerhouse. We are full steam ahead for a legendary 3peat and the women are winning a title next year too.

 

[upstater]

So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.

Or, maybe go with the common sense solution. Professionalize the revenue sports and allow them to use the university brand so there's some (faux) affiliation. I'm not sure how content fans will be with such a setup but I'm sure it would go over very well in Alabama, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Georgia.

 

[shizzle787]

This isn’t good news.

Basically, it will be an eight figure hit to our yearly athletic budget.

We will pay and so will the rest of the Big East.

 

[shizzle787]

This is a disaster for UConn.

The NIL booster stuff is still going to go on regardless. Nothing to stop it.

But now schools are going to pay $20m on top of that?

Where is UConn going to find an extra $20m per year?

And how is all that backpay going to happen? Where is it going to come from?

It's a weird concept too. The NLRB has ruled against colleges when it comes to unionization of TAs. No doubt it found exploitation. Are they going to pay every former TA some money into perpetuity?

State income tax $10/year surcharge for each of the state’s 2 million taxpayers.

 

[Drew]

We will pay and so will the rest of the Big East.

I really think you have zero concept of how money works. It is astonishing how awful your takes are on this stuff constantly. It’s like you don’t actually read about anything that is happening and just plug your ears and say this stuff as fact with no regard to reality

 

[shizzle787]

So schools would be paying students who lose money for the schools. None of this makes any sense. At this point get rid of all non-revenue sports.

Title IX says hello.

 

[How Sway?!]

Best case scenario for us here is if part of the settlement includes bringing NIL in house and it's included in the revenue share. Still a lot up in the air looks like, including how the revenue sharing number is calculated per school

 

[Drew]

Best case scenario for us here is if part of the settlement includes bringing NIL in house and it's included in the revenue share. Still a lot up in the air looks like, including how the revenue sharing number is calculated per school

The main problem we face is that we have little to no revenue available to share once this comes to pass. Certainly not $20M annually.

 

[shizzle787]

I really think you have zero concept of how money works. It is astonishing how awful your takes are on this stuff constantly. It’s like you don’t actually read about anything that is happening and just plug your ears and say this stuff as fact with no regard to reality

Anyone who knows me in person knows I am ruthless with money. I’m better with money than 99% on the board.

You are like the boy who cries wolf. Every change in college athletics you hide under the covers thinking UConn is done. Yet we just won two more basketball titles, made a bowl game in 2022, and outbid Kentucky for a couple huge recruits. Broke schools don’t outbid SEC schools.

I’m well aware of our on paper deficit.

This revenue sharing thing isn’t going to happen. Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years.

 

[Drew]

Anyone who knows me in person knows I am ruthless with money. I’m better with money than 99% on the board.

You are like the boy who cries wolf. Every change in college athletics you hide under the covers thinking UConn is done. Yet we just won two more basketball titles, made a bowl game in 2022, and outbid Kentucky for a couple huge recruits. Broke schools don’t outbid SEC schools.

I’m well aware of our on paper deficit.

This revenue sharing thing isn’t going to happen. Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years.

UConn going to one bowl game in 8 years and winning the NCAA Tournament The last two years has zero bearing on what is coming in the future of college athletics. You are conflating results of on field competition with legal litigation and future financial requirements. They are two completely separate things- Everyone has been talking for multiple years now about the new financial realities that will be required in order to compete at the highest level. That is now coming to light.

You claim that the Big East teams will all pay this money. $20M added costs annually is going to be an increase of anywhere from 40-60% of these schools’ existing budgets. You can’t just pull that out of a hat and good luck essentially taxing students through added fees who are taking out loans to pay for college so that the schools can eventually try to pay that money directly to their classmates. Surely that would go over great.

“Revenue sharing isn’t going to happen” - absolutely no idea how you can read anything in the article linked and come to that conclusion. The entire article is about how that is expected to happen.

”Schools will be forced to pay players directly within 5 years”. So…….. sharing the revenue they generate with the players then. And how do you think it will go when schools bringing in $100M+ annually are paying athletes directly on top of collective compensation and other NIL opportunities?

This is a massive problem for the university. They have no money. Zero. Pretending like adding more liabilities to UConn’s balance sheet without increasing revenues somehow isn’t an issue for us is laughable. And if you somehow think the state legislature is going to randomly vote to allot $20M annually to UConn’s athletic department to do this while we have been asked to cut our overall budget over the last 3 years, then you’re even dumber than I thought.

 

[rman726]

The main problem we face is that we have little to no revenue available to share once this comes to pass. Certainly not $20M annually.

I don’t think that we make enough profits to have any to share with the our 600+ athletes. We aren’t required to spend $20M. That’s just the cap.

The big schools have upwards of 1000+ athletes. They won’t be able to get away with paying only football and basketball. They will get shit on by the women in the courts if they try. A cap of $20 million will result in peanuts for 1000 athletes. I don’t see how them paying $33k on top of NIL is going to kill us based on the fact that we are clearly competing with the big boys on NIL.

Change happens. In the end, we’ll probably survive just like we always do.